The World Bank’s assessment that Australia is the world’s “”wealthiest” is certainly thought-provoking. Usually, Australia rates about 20th. The difference has arisen because the bank has counted natural resources, such as land, water, minerals and timber, whereas other surveys count income only.
In view of Australia’s high unemployment; the high number on social welfare and the number in at least notional poverty, does this indicate that Australia is not managing its wealth very well?
The bank’s assessment shows how limited some economic measures are. What does “”wealth” mean? Is it of much joy to most Australians that there are lots of unexploited resources on and in the land if they do not translate into not only higher income but an overall more fulfilling life. Further, do the unexploited resources add much to overall wealth if translating them to income necessitates widespread environmental damage that could ultimately lower the quality of life.
Does it matter if Australia in total is the “”wealthiest”, second “”wealthiest” or 50th “”wealthiest” nation on earth?
The World Bank has done us a favour, by highlighting through omission the important things of life: clean air and water; good food and shelter; good education; access to best medical treatment; equality of opportunity; freedom of speech; equality before the law and the rule of law; liberty and democracy. Wealth alone does not bring all of these to all of the people all of the time.